On April 19, 2026, Justice Masley of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Alpha Sense, LLC v. Richards, 2026 NY Slip Op. 31713(U), refusing to seal an AI-generated report regarding an opposing party, explaining:
Under New York law, there is a broad presumption that the public is entitled to access to judicial proceedings and court records. The public’s right to access is, however, not absolute, and under certain circumstances, public inspection of court records has been limited by numerous statutes. For example, § 216.1(a) of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts, empowers courts to seal documents only upon a written finding of good cause. It provides:
Except where otherwise provided by statute or rule, a court shall not enter an order in any action or proceeding sealing the court records, whether in whole or in part, except upon a written finding of good cause, which shall specify the grounds thereof. In determining whether good cause has been shown, the court shall consider the interests of the public as well as of the parties. Where it appears necessary or desirable, the court may prescribe appropriate notice and opportunity to be heard.
The party seeking to seal court records has the burden to demonstrate compelling circumstances to justify restricting public access to the documents. Good cause must rest on a sound basis or legitimate need to take judicial action.
Courts have recognized a compelling interest in sealing records that contain financial information and that are of minimal public interest.
Plaintiff argues that good cause exists to seal the documents because they include confidential and propriety reports generated by plaintiff using its own propriety database and technology and plaintiff’s competitive intel Slack channel and propriety summaries and excerpts of market research calls complied by plaintiff.
. . .
Defendants . . . argue that as the report itself acknowledges, it is AI generated and that the platform merely aggregates and synthesizes publicly available information while not generating propriety intelligence. . . .
A plain reading of NYSCEF 39 shows that the information contained in the report pertains to the performance of defendant, Daloopa and not plaintiff. Plaintiff does not explain why information about defendant Daloopa of which Daloopa is aware, should be sealed. Plaintiff also fails to explain how plaintiff’s effort to document the financial performance of Daloopa would reveal its propriety plaintiff’s information. Further, the report is AI generated. The bottom of every page consists of a disclaimer:
This Generative Search result is Al-generated and may include inaccuracies. Use discretion and verify with original sources. See additional disclaimers located at the back of this report.
This shows that the report in NYSCEF 39 is not an original source and may not be entirely accurate. This undermines plaintiff’s argument for sealing because it supports defendants claim that the original sources were publicly accessible.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).